"Your first quere is, are the words of the Treaty 'there
shall be no legal impediment to the bona fide recovery of
debts on either side' a law of repeal, or a covenant that a
law of repeal shall be passed?"--As Treaties are declared
to be the supreme law of the land, I should suppose that
the words of the treaty are to be taken for the words of the
law, unless the stipulation be expressly or necessarily executory,
which does not in this instance appear to be the
case.

"Was not the contrary the sense of the Congress who
made the Treaty, when they called on the States to repeal
the several laws containing such impediments?"--As well
as I recollect, the Act of Congress on that occasion, supposed
the impediments to be repealed by the Treaty, and
recommended a repeal by the States, merely as declaratory
and in order to obviate doubts and discussions. Perhaps
too, on a supposition that a legal repeal might have been
necessary previous to the new Constitution, it may be rendered
unnecessary by the terms of this instrument above
quoted, which seem to give a legal force to the Treaty.

"Admitting the treaty to be a law of repeal, what is the
extent of it? Does it repeal all acts of limitation, & such as
regulate the modes of proving debts?"--This question
probably involves several very nice points, and requires a
more critical knowledge of the State of the American laws,
the course of legal proceedings, and the circumstances of
the British debts, than I possess. Under this disadvantage,
I am afraid to say more than that the probable intention
of the parties, and the expression, "bona fide recovery of
debts" seem to plead for a liberal & even favorable interpretation
of the article. Unless there be very strong and
clear objections, such an interpretation would seem to require,
that the debts should be viewed as in the State, in
which the original obstacles to their recovery, found them;
so far at least as the nature of the case will permit.

"What is meant by the supreme law as applied to treaties?
Is it like those of the Medes & Persians unalterable? or
may not the contracting powers annul it by consent? or a
breach on one side discharge the other from an obligation
to perform its part?"--Treaties as I understand the Constitution
are made supreme over the constitutions and laws
of the particular States, and, like a subsequent law of the
U. S., over pre-existing laws of the U. S. provided however
that the Treaty be within the prerogative of making Treaties,
which no doubt has certain limits.

That the contracting powers can annul the Treaty, cannot
I presume, be questioned; the same authority precisely
being exercised in annulling as in making a Treaty.

That a breach on one side (even of a single article, each
being considered as a condition of every other article) discharges
the other, is as little questionable; but with this
reservation, that the other side is at liberty to take advantage
or not of the breach, as dissolving the Treaty. Hence
I infer that the Treaty with G. B, which has not been annulled
by mutual consent, must be regarded as in full
force, by all on whom its execution in the U. S. depends,
until it shall be declared by the party to whom a right has
accrued by the breach of the other party to declare, that
advantage is taken of the breach, & the Treaty is annulled
accordingly. In case it should be adviseable to take advantage
of the adverse breach a question may perhaps be
started, whether the power vested by the Constitution with
respect to Treaties in the President & Senate, makes them
the competent Judges, or whether as the Treaty is a law
the whole Legislature are to judge of its annulment--or
whether, in case the President & Senate be competent in
ordinary Treaties, the Legislative authority be requisite to
annul a Treaty of peace, as being equipollent to a Declaration
of war, to which that authority alone, by our Constitution,
is competent.

The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962--77 (vols. 1--10); Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977--(vols. 11--).